Scientia Iranica A (2011) 18 (3), 275284

Sharif University of Technology

Scientia Iranica
Transactions A: Civil Engineering
www.sciencedirect.com

Invited/Review paper
Smart structures: Part IActive and semi-active control
N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, The Ohio State University, 470 Hitchcock Hall, 2070 Neil Avenue, Columbus,
OH 43220, USA
Received 23 January 2011; accepted 5 March 2011

KEYWORDS Abstract This paper and a companion paper present a state-of-the-art review of significant research
Active control; performed in the area of smart structures. The focus of the review is journal articles published since
Earthquake engineering; 1997. This paper reviews articles on active and-semi active control of structures using a variety of systems.
Semi-active control; Active control systems include active tuned mass dampers, distributed actuators, active tendon systems
Smart structures; and active coupled building systems. Semi-active control systems include: magnetorheological (MR) fluid
Tuned liquid column dampers, semi-active stiffness dampers, semi-active tuned liquid column dampers, and piezoelectric
damper. dampers. A review of hybrid control systems and control strategies is presented in the companion paper.
2011 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 275
2. Active control of structures ................................................................................................................................................................................... 276
2.1. Active tuned mass damper........................................................................................................................................................................ 276
2.2. Distributed actuators ................................................................................................................................................................................. 277
2.3. Active tendon systems............................................................................................................................................................................... 277
2.4. Active coupled building systems .............................................................................................................................................................. 278
2.5. Other systems ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 278
3. Semi-active control of structures.......................................................................................................................................................................... 278
3.1. Magnetorheological (MR) fluid dampers ................................................................................................................................................. 278
3.2. Semi-active stiffness dampers .................................................................................................................................................................. 279
3.3. Semi-active tuned liquid column damper ............................................................................................................................................... 280
3.4. Piezoelectric dampers ............................................................................................................................................................................... 280
3.5. Semi-active TMD........................................................................................................................................................................................ 280
3.6. Other methods ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 280
4. Final comments ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 281
References............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 281

1. Introduction via sensors and modify its behavior in real time, so that it
can withstand external dynamic forces, such as earthquake
What is a smart or adaptive structure? Broadly speaking, loading, wind or impact. In other words, a smart structure
a smart structure can sense its dynamic loading environment is an intelligent machine that can change and adapt to
its environment dynamically [1,2]. This is in contrast to
Corresponding author. the conventional view of a structure that has existed for
E-mail address: adeli.1@osu.edu (H. Adeli). millennia [35]. There has been increasing interest in the
field of smart structures in the past twenty years. This is
1026-3098 2011 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by definitely one of the most exciting areas of research in structural
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Peer review under responsibility of Sharif
University of Technology.
engineering. Many workers in the field are multidisciplinary,
forward thinking and out-of-the-box researchers. The goal of
doi:10.1016/j.scient.2011.05.034 this and the companion paper [6] (this issue) is to review the
significant research done in this area in recent years.
How can we make a structure smart? There are different
strategies. The strategy pursued and advocated by the senior
author and his associates over the past 15 years is to place
actuators within the structure, strategically, which will apply
276 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
the required forces to compensate for the forces of nature and
minimize the vibrations of the structure [7]. In other words,
in an adaptive/smart structure, we design a predetermined
number of members to be actively controlled members. Each
such member has a sensor, a feedback control device [810] and
an actuator. The sensor measures the displacements along the
degrees of freedom. The feedback control device determines the
appropriate correction to the uncontrolled response, and the
actuator applies the required force. Such a system consists of
three physical components: sensors, actuators and a computer.
There is also the need for a control algorithm that will
determine the magnitude of control forces at any given time.
However, there are other strategies and physical systems. The
common goal in them all is to minimize the vibrations in real
time. All of them require an effective control algorithm.
Housner et al. [11] presented a thorough review of the
field of structural control up to 1996. While the topic of smart
structures is broader than structural control, they reviewed
many of the papers published on the subject. The scope of the
present review is limited primarily to journal articles published
since 1997.
A host of engineers are working in the area of smart
structures including mechanical, electrical, materials and
structural engineers. As such, the field of smart structures can
be quite broad and multidisciplinary [1231]. It can also include
the field of smart materials. In order to limit the scope of
this review within the limitations of a journal article, it has
been limited mostly to civil structures, with only mention of
relevant papers on smart materials. The review is presented
in two companion articles. This article is devoted to the
review of papers published on active and semi-active control
of structures. It is presented roughly in chronological order.
Hybrid control systems and control strategies are reviewed in
the companion paper [6] (this issue).
2. Active control of structures
2.1. Active tuned mass damper
Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD) have fixed frequency and
damping characteristics and can be used to tune only a
given fixed frequency of vibration, normally the fundamental
frequency of vibrations of a structure [32]. TMD systems were
developed as an innovative system for passive vibration control
of building structures in the 1970s. Since then, they have been
implemented in a number of high-profile highrise buildings.
The first building in the US to be designed with a TMD from
the beginning appears to be the 70-story Park Tower in Chicago
completed in 2000. The worlds second tallest building, Taipei
101, also employs a TMD system with a 660 metric ton steel
pendulum used to offset the lateral displacements of the
building caused by strong wind gusts. Despite the emergence of
nearly four decade-old technology in practice, as a technological
marvel, TMD systems have several shortcomings. First, it is not
possible to calculate the fundamental frequency of vibration of
a structure accurately. Second, this frequency changes during
an extreme dynamic event, such as strong ground motion.
TMD systems can be partially effective when the fundamental
frequency of the structure dominates the response, which
may be the case for vibrations under ordinary winds. TMD
systems are not as effective for irregular structures under strong
ground motion, when several different modes of vibration
may contribute significantly to the dynamic response of the
structure.
One of the earliest approaches to active control of vibrations
in structures has been Active Tuned Mass Damper (ATMD)
systems. This system is also known as an Active Mass Driver
(AMD). In an ATMD system, an actuator placed between the
structure and the TMD system applies a computed force in
real time. Wu and Yang [33] discuss the use of an ATMD
system consisting of three actuators to control the wind-
induced motion of the 310-m Nanjing TV transmission Tower in
China. For the control algorithm, they used the Linear Quadratic
Gaussian (LQG), H , and continuous Sliding Mode Control
(SMC) strategies, and found that all three performed well at
mitigating the vibration of the structure. (For a brief description
of various control strategies, refer to [6] (this issue).) Yan
et al. [34] present expressions for the required control force to
be applied by an ATMD system for a high-rise building with a
rectangular plan subjected to vibrations due to wind loadings.
Yamamoto et al. [35] present the performance results of
ATMD systems installed in four actual steel-frame high-rise
buildings in Japan, ranging in height from 58.0 to 189.7 m
(1134 stories). The ATMD systems for three of the buildings
utilized existing masses, such as ice thermal storage tanks
(used for air conditioning) and a heliport as the controlling
masses. To verify the control systems, they carried out forced
vibration tests on each building before completion, using the
ATMD system itself to shake the building. After the ATMD
system shook the building for a period of 10 s, it was activated
to suppress the response of the building. The authors also
monitored the response of the completed buildings under
minor seismic events and wind loading. Their results showed
that the installed ATMDs were effective at controlling the
response of the buildings.
Li et al. [36] use the H2 control algorithm to manage the
response of a two-dimensional (2D) model of a jacketed-type
offshore platform in 218 m of water, equipped with an ATMD,
and subjected to wave loadings. They found that an ATMD
system performs better than a passive TMD system. Lee and
Wang [37] examine the effect of pitch width (the distance
between threads) on the efficiency of an ATMD system, utilizing
a servomotor and ball screw to control a 2D five-story frame.
The ball screw is driven by the servomotor and advances the
mass one pitch width per revolution through a nut. Friction
between the ball screw and nut is minimized by using metal
bearing balls that are sized to fit the ball screw precisely. The
authors use an optimal direct output feedback strategy where
output measurement is directly multiplied by time-invariant
feedback gain and fed back to the structural system [38] and the
1940, El Centro, California earthquake as input. They found that
if pitch is adjusted correctly, a 70% reduction in peak response
is possible. Conversely, if the pitch is not adjusted correctly, the
ATMD system may have a detrimental effect on the structure.
The authors claim that this high performance, along with the
minimal noise output and lack of oil leakage, make this type of
ATMD more desirable than ATMD systems driven by actuators.
The majority of research published on TMD systems is
limited to a single ATMD. A few researchers have advocated
the use of multiple ATMDs in a given structure. Ikeda et al. [39]
discuss the performance of an ATMD system actually installed
in a ten-story, steel-frame building in Tokyo in 1989. The
system utilizes two AMTDs to control both lateral and torsional
vibrations and the LQR control algorithm. Since its installation,
the building has been subjected to actual earthquake and
typhoon wind loadings, with 26% and 11% reductions in
lateral and torsional vibrations during earthquakes, and a 33%
reduction in peak response due to wind loadings.
 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
Li et al. [40] advocate the use of multiple ATMDs for control
of vibrations due to ground motions and show that several
smaller ATMDs perform better than a single large ATMD. Guclu
and Yazici [41] compare the ability of a proportional-derivative
controller and a Fuzzy Logic [4259] Controller (FLC) to control
a 2D, 15 Degrees Of Freedom (DOF), 15-story frame, with
ATMDs on the first and 15th floors. The proportional-derivative
algorithm is a generic control loop feedback algorithm used
commonly in industrial systems where the proportional part
determines the reaction to the current error, and the derivative
aspect determines the reaction based on the rate at which the
error is changing. Using the 1999, Kocaeli, Turkish earthquake
motion as input, the authors found that the FLC was more
effective at controlling the motion of the structure than the
proportional-derivative controller. For a review of fuzzy logic
controllers, refer to the companion paper [6] (this issue).
2.2. Distributed actuators
Saleh and Adeli [6062] present general parallel algo-
rithms [6381] for simultaneous optimization of control and
structural systems through a judicious combination of vector-
ization on the innermost nested loops, microtasking (parallel
processing at the outer loop level) and macrotasking (parallel
processing at the function level) on high-performance shared-
memory multiprocessors, such as the CRAY YMP machine [82].
Begg and Liu [83] also discuss simultaneous optimization of
control and structural systems.
Adeli and Saleh [84] present a computational model for
active control of large structures using distributed actuators
subjected to various types of dynamic loading, such as impact,
wind and earthquake loadings. The governing differential
equations of the open loop and closed loop systems are
formulated, and a recursive approach is presented to compute
the response of the structure. A major bottleneck in optimal
active control of large structures with hundreds or thousands
of members, using distributed actuators and the LQR algorithm,
is the solution of the complex eigenvalue problem encountered
in the solution of the resulting Riccati equation, as well as the
solution of both open loop and closed loop systems of equations.
Saleh and Adeli [85] present robust and efficient parallel-
vector algorithms for solution of the eigenvalue problem of
an unsymmetrical real matrix using the general approach of
matrix iterations and exploiting the architecture of shared
memory supercomputers. The algorithms are applied to large
matrices including one resulting from a 21-story space truss
structure. Saleh and Adeli [86] present robust and efficient
parallel-vector algorithms for solution of the Riccati equations
encountered in the structural control problems on shared-
memory multiprocessor machines, such as the Cray YMP
8/8128 supercomputer using the eigenvector approach. The
algorithms are applied to three large examples. It is shown that
the algorithms consistently provide stable results for problems
of various sizes while other algorithms show numerical
instability for large problems. Further, it is demonstrated
that the parallel processing efficiency of the parallel-vector
algorithms increases with an increase in the size of the
problem.
Hanagan and Murray [87] use actuators to reduce floor
vibrations caused by occupant use. They evaluated the model
on a full-scale test floor, representative of a typical floor in an
office building structure. Numerical and physical experiments
showed that vibrations caused by the heel drop excitation
277
can be reduced effectively. Subsequently, Hanagan et al. [88]
presented a method for optimal placement of actuators and
sensors for reduction of vibrations in floor systems.
During a severe event, an actuator may be unable to
produce enough force to counteract the motion of the structure.
In this case, the actuator is said to be saturated. Agrawal
et al. [89] studied the effect of actuator saturation on the
stability of a structure and found that saturated actuators
were not detrimental to the structural stability of a 2D six-
story frame. Djouadi et al. [90] use six actuators to control
an active theoretical tensegrity model consisting of 24 cables,
six 1.67-m long struts, and six active members under random
excitation. Reductions in response in the x-, y- and z-directions
of 97.78%, 97.66%, and 95.37%, respectively, were observed for
the theoretical structure. Asano and Nakagawa [91] consider
seismic response under a saturation control force based on
a probabilistic approach. Chase et al. [92] discuss an H
controller which is stable under actuator saturation for single
and multiple actuator systems in a 2D five-story frame.
Saleh and Adeli [93] present active control of three-
dimensional (3D) irregular multistory building structures with
curved beams and setback, representing both space moment-
resisting and braced frames using computational models and
high-performance parallel algorithms for the optimal control
of large structures, as discussed earlier. They considered
three types of dynamic loading: earthquake motions, periodic
impulsive horizontal wind loading on the exterior joints of
the structure, and asymmetric periodic impulsive wind loading
on the exterior of the structure, intending to model a twister.
They also investigate different schemes for the placement of
controllers along the height of the structure. They conclude that
controllers are more effective in unbraced moment-resisting
frames than in braced frames, and the optimal arrangement for
placement of controllers depends on the height and aspect ratio
of the structure.
Saleh and Adeli [94] present optimal control of adaptive
multistory building structures subjected to blast loadings. Both
internal blast loading at different floor levels and external
blast loading from outside the structure are considered. Results
are presented for several large regular and irregular moment-
resisting space frame structures. It is demonstrated that
through judicious placement of controllers and the selection
of control forces, the response of a building structure can
be reduced substantially to a fraction of the response of the
uncontrolled structure.
2.3. Active tendon systems
Bossens and Preumont [95] used an active tendon system
utilizing either hydraulic or piezoelectric actuators for control-
ling the vibrations of two different scaled, cable-stayed bridge
models under wind loadings (for a review of computational
earthquake engineering of bridges, see [96]). Active tendons are
prestressed tendons placed between floors of a structure, sim-
ilar to cross bracings, or on the end of cables in cable-stayed
bridges or stays. Actuators are used to adjust the level of tension
in the cables, thus controlling the magnitude of the control force
applied to the structure. Rodellar et al. [97] present an active
tendon control scheme for a 142.5-m long cable-stayed pedes-
trian bridge. The controlled bridge was subjected to the 1952
Taft earthquake using a Lyapunov-based controller. The active
tendon system was able to reduce the response of the bridge
significantly.
278 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
2.4. Active coupled building systems
A number of researchers have proposed to achieve active
control using actuators by coupling buildings. In this method,
two buildings are connected, and the respective stiffness of
each helps to control the response of other structure. With the
addition of actuators, this level of control can be amplified.
Christenson et al. [98] investigate the effect of the active
coupling of two 2D highrise building frames of differing heights
and mode shapes using a hydraulic actuator connecting the
structures at a single point. Ying et al. [99] use an active
control device to connect 10- and 20-story 2D building frames
to mitigate their response to seismic excitation. They report
that a device connecting the 10th floors of the structures
provides better control than devices connecting the 8th floors
or the 6th floors. Song et al. [100] analyzed two 2D 20-story
frames connected through actuators under random earthquake
excitations, and found that the coupling of the frames reduced
top floor displacements by 69%. Cundumi and Surez [101] use
two passive dampers and an actuator to control the vibration
of a simple 2D Single Degree Of Freedom (SDOF), and Multiple
Degree Of Freedom (MDOF) models in close proximity, under
the 1976 Friuli, Italy, 1971 San Fernando, and 1940 El Centro
earthquake loadings using a variation of the LQR controller.
2.5. Other systems
Zhang and Ou [102] investigate controlstructure interac-
tion in a 2D two-story frame, using an electromagnetic mass
damper system (which is similar to an ATMD, but uses mag-
netic forces to move the mass). They determined through shak-
ing table tests and numerical simulation that controlstructure
interaction must be considered when designing an active con-
trol system in order to obtain maximum performance.
3. Semi-active control of structures
The shortcoming of an active control system is its require-
ment for a considerable power source. A semi-active control
system needs limited power and is normally operated by a bat-
tery.
3.1. Magnetorheological (MR) fluid dampers
One method of semi-active control is the use of MR fluid
dampers. These dampers employ MR fluids which produce
large damping forces in a piston-cylinder system that can be
controlled by varying the current to the damper in real time.
In the event of power loss, the MR fluid dampers act as passive
dampers, thus maintaining some protection.
Jung et al. [103] use MR dampers to control the vibrations
of cable-stayed bridges subjected to earthquake loadings.
The ASCE benchmark cable-stayed problem, which is based
on the Cape Girardeau Bridge in Missouri, was the model
for this study [104]. The actual bridge is 633 m long and
has two cable-stayed towers. Twenty-four MR fluid dampers,
each with a 1000 kN capacity, were placed at four different
locations between the deck and the piers and outer supports
along the bridge. A clipped-optimal and an H2 /LQG control
algorithms were used to control the MR dampers. After
subjecting the bridge to three different earthquakes (1940 El
Centro, California, 1985 Mexico City, and 1999 Gebze, Turkey),
the authors conclude MR dampers are a viable option for
controlling the vibration response of a bridge, with a reduction
of 69% seen in all responses.
Moon et al. [105] carried out a finite element analysis of
the benchmark Cape Girardeau cable-stayed bridge fitted with
24 MR dampers and controlled with SMC and LQG controllers.
They subjected the bridge to the 1940 El Centro, 1985 Mexico
City, and 1999 Gebze, Turkey, earthquakes and concluded that
the SMC algorithm is more effective for the MR system and
the MR system is comparable to active hydraulic actuator
systems. Hiemenz et al. [106] use MR dampers in active
bracings to mitigate the response of a 60 in. tall, 2D three-story
scaled-model frame under earthquake loading, and find that
the SMC provides 10% more reduction in displacements and
accelerations than the LQR and skyhook controllers (a controller
that applies a damping control force only when the force and
velocity have the same sign).
Sodeyama et al. [107] built two 20- and 200-kN capacity
MR dampers that use a bypass-type orifice mechanism, and
determined their damping properties experimentally and
analytically. Liu et al. [108] explore the use of MR fluid dampers
for semi-active control of bridges. They performed shake table
tests on a 1:12 scale overpass highway bridge equipped with
two MR fluid dampers, using energy minimization (adjusting of
the damping force to minimize the rate of change of the system
energy), Lyapunov-based (based on the Lyapunov function)
fuzzy logic, and variable structure system fuzzy logic (FLC,
with addition of a sliding mode) control strategies. All control
strategies were found to decrease the RMS deck displacements
compared with the uncontrolled case; the FLC having the
greatest effect and requiring the least amount of power.
Renzi and Serino [109] performed shake-table tests on
a scaled four-story, 4.5-m tall, 3.2- by 2.1-m in plan steel
frame fitted with MR dampers in active bracing systems. Each
active bracing system used one MR damper and spanned two
stories. The authors used an instantaneous optimal control
algorithm and the motion of the 1976 Friuli, Italy, and
1994 Northridge earthquakes, and a synthetic accelogram as
input. They reported reductions in displacement of 30%35%,
compared with the passive MR damper condition.
Xu et al. [110] assess the effectiveness of semi-active MR
dampers on scaled models of buildings with a podium structure.
Using a seismic simulator, a 3D, 12-story, 2.4-m tall steel-frame
with a surrounding three-story, 0.6-m tall podium structure
was subjected to the scaled 1940 El Centro earthquake motions.
Four different cases were tested: no connection between the
podium and inner structures, without any vibration control;
a rigid connection between the podium and inner structures,
without any vibration control; a passive MR damper (with no
voltage applied) connecting the podium and inner structures;
and a semi-active MR damper connecting the podium and
inner structures using a multilevel logic control algorithm. RMS
displacements and accelerations using the semi-active system
were decreased up to 70% and 60%, respectively, compared with
the uncontrolled system, and up to 34% and 25%, respectively,
compared with the passive control system.
Yoshida and Dyke [111] use MR dampers to manage the
behavior of two irregularly shaped 3D buildings subjected to
seismic loadings. One replicated a nine-story, 40.25-m tall,
composite steel-reinforced concrete office building in Japan
with plan irregularity due to the placement of shear walls.
The other was an L-shaped, eight-story, 35.1-m tall, steel
braced benchmark building [112] with setbacks. Placement of
MR control devices was determined by Genetic Algorithms
(GAs) [113120]. A clipped-optimal control algorithm with
 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
H2 /LQG controller was used. The first building had 110 MR
dampers and was subjected to one-dimensional motion of the
1940 El Centro earthquake. The second building had 146 and
168 MR dampers in x and y-directions, respectively, and was
subjected to 1995 Kobe earthquake ground motions in two
directions, simultaneously.
Loh et al. [121] investigate the use of MR dampers,
employing a wireless control system to manage the seismic
response of a three-story, half-scale, steel structure, two by
three meters in plan and nine meters tall, subjected to the 1940
El Centro earthquake motion, on a shaking table. The 20-kN
capacity MR dampers were placed in each story in the form
of K bracings, and wireless sensors were placed throughout
the structure. Using an LQG controller, the authors considered
both fully centralized (control force determined from each DOF
throughout the entire system) and fully decentralized (where
each control device receives input from a local controller
rather than one central controller, thus splitting the control
system into many subsystems) control strategies. They suggest
the decentralized strategy to be more practical due to its
robustness and high sampling rate. Loh and Chang [122] also
evaluate centralized and decentralized LQG control strategies
for reducing the seismic response of a 3D, 80.77-m tall, 5-bay
by 6-bay, 20-story frame employing MR dampers subjected to
the motion of the 1940 El Centro earthquake. They used thirty-
two 140-kN MR dampers and four strategies: fully centralized,
fully decentralized, half-centralized (control gain for each
device determined independently), and partially decentralized
(global system is divided into subsystems, but each subsystem
takes into account more DOFs than fully decentralized). They
concluded that the decentralized control system performed just
as well as the centralized system and is more robust.
Christenson et al. [123] use real-time hybrid simulation
to carry out experiments on the effects of MR dampers on
structural control. Real-time hybrid simulation involves only
physically testing the important components of a system, while
the rest of the system is simulated numerically. A scaled 2D,
three-story, four bay, steel frame with a 200 kN capacity MR
fluid damper on each floor was used. The finite element method
was used to model and simulate the response of the structure,
while the MR fluid dampers were the physical component of the
hybrid simulation. The authors used the 1979 Imperial Valley,
California, earthquake as the experimental input. The results of
this hybrid simulation echoed the results of earlier simulations,
that MR dampers are effective at controlling the response of a
structure to stochastic loadings.
3.2. Semi-active stiffness dampers
Semi-Active Stiffness Dampers (SASD) consist of a fluid-
filled cylinder, a piston and a motor controlled valve. The motor
regulates the opening of the valve, thus controlling the flow
of the viscous fluid (most commonly oil) and adjusting the
damping coefficient in real time. Patten et al. [124] present
a primer on SASD (also referred to as semi-active vibration
absorbers). Jabbari and Bobrow [125] use the Resetting Semi-
Active Stiffness Dampers (RSASD) for control of a 2D, three-
story, three-bay frame under random excitations. This system
works by adding stiffness to the system when the valve is
closed and dissipating the absorbed energy when the valve is
open (periodically resetting the position of the piston, while not
exerting any force onto the system). The authors find that the
RSASD system using a decentralized control algorithm provides
adequate structural control.
279
Agrawal et al. [126] use Switching Semi-Active Stiffness
Dampers (SSASD), RSASD with linear springs, and linear and
nonlinear viscous fluid dampers for the vibration control of the
aforementioned ASCE benchmark cable-stayed bridge. Similar
to RSASD, an SSASD system works by periodically opening and
closing the valve on the cylinder. When the valve is opened
completely, no damping is provided, but when closed, the
SSASD behaves as a normal SASD. The authors use a linear
boundary layer semi-active friction controller for both semi-
active stiffness damper types. The authors report that the
RSASD system with linear springs performed better at reducing
the displacement of the bridge deck, and shear and moment at
the tower base, than semi-active friction dampers and linear
and non-linear passive viscous dampers. Kurino et al. [127]
also use a semi-active control system similar to SASD, and a
decentralized control algorithm allowing each damper to act
independently, to control a 2D, 20-story frame subjected to the
1940 El Centro and 1968 Hachinohe earthquakes.
Nishitani et al. [128] discuss the use of variable-slip force
SASD, where a bilinear hysteresis in the dampers provides
a given ductility factor, independent of the magnitude of
the seismic excitation loads. Bilinear hysteresis is maintained
through the use of slipping dampers. Once a certain level of
damping force is reached, the damper actuator arm slips and
continues to displace, but applies the same amount of damping
force. Once a certain level of displacement has occurred, the
applied damping force and displacement begin to decrease until
a certain level of negative or opposite force is reached, and
the same slippage mentioned above occurs. This pattern of
behavior repeats itself, forming a loop, until the excitation has
subsided. A decentralized control algorithm is used to maintain
the ductility factor and determine the slip-force level. The
authors applied this method to a 2D, 20-story, 20 DOF structural
model of an actual building in Japan, subjected to the 1940
El Centro earthquake, with an SASD in each story, and linear
behavior in the structure was achieved.
Fukukita et al. [129] compare the effectiveness of an
SASD system using an LQG controller with viscous damping
walls (walls composed of two plates with a viscous fluid
filling the void between them) for controlling a 2D, 20-story,
benchmark model under the 1940 El Centro, 1968 Hachinohe,
1994 Northridge, and 1995 Kobe earthquakes. They found the
passive viscous damping walls to provide better control under
the given conditions, with eight and 24% greater reduction
in peak acceleration and drift. Bhardwaj and Datta [130]
discuss vibration control of a 2D frame model of the five-
story steel building presented by Kurata et al. [131], with
SASDs installed in each story in cross bracings using an FLC
algorithm. They performed a parametric study using the 1940
El Centro earthquake as input and concluded that the damping
coefficients of the dampers, maximum damping coefficients,
and the damper capacity were the factors having the greatest
influence on the controlled response. The authors study optimal
combinations of these three parameters for the controlled
response of the structure due to motions caused by the 1940
El Centro earthquake, and find that the FLC controller provides
slightly better control of the top floor acceleration and base
shear than the LQR controller.
Yang et al. [132] utilize pressurized gas RSASD to control a
three-story, half-scale steel structure, two by three meters in
plan and nine meters tall, under the 1995 Kobe, 1999 Chi Chi,
and 1940 El Centro earthquake motions. The authors varied the
number, location and pressure level of the RSASD and employed
a Lyapunov-based decentralized control strategy, and found
that the pressurized gas RSASD decreased peak and RMS inter-
story drift and RMS floor acceleration, but was ineffective at
decreasing peak floor acceleration.
280 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
3.3. Semi-active tuned liquid column damper
The Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) system was
introduced by Sakai et al. [133,134] as another type of
passive damping system. In a TLCD system, the solid mass
is replaced by liquid (commonly water) and control forces
are based on the motion of a liquid column through an
orifice in a U-like container to counteract the forces acting
on the structure [135,136]. The passive TLCD system has
been employed in a 48-story building in Vancouver, Canada,
completed in 2001. (It consists of two 227,300 L water tanks.)
Sloshing of the water in the tanks counteracts the sideway
vibration of the building. The largest passive TLCD system in
the world has been used in the 57-story, 1009-ft tall Comcast
Center in Philadelphia.
In the original passive TLCD, the size of the orifice is fixed. In
a semi-active TLCD system, the size of the orifice is changed in
real time to control the rate of headloss. Yalla and Kareem [137]
investigate the use of semi-active tuned liquid column dampers
as a control mechanism. They ran tests using a shaking table on
a scaled model of a 60-story, 183-m tall, square-based building
excited by wind to determine the optimal absorber parameters,
such as damping ratio and tuning ratio, for a 0.038 m-diameter,
0.81 m-long U-tube. Results showed that the semi-active TLCD
located on the roof with these optimal parameters decreased
the reaction of the building 15%25% more than a passive
system, where the fluid is free to move between the two
columns during excitation. Chen and Ko [138] use a semi-active
TLCD that utilizes propellers to change the height of liquid
in the columns instead of a variable orifice. They performed
laboratory tests on a pendulum-like model, using the propeller
TLCD system and a feedback optimal controller to reduce the
response due to the motion of 1995 Kobe earthquake with
significant reduction in the response of the rig over the passive
TLCD system observed.
3.4. Piezoelectric dampers
Piezoelectric (PZT) dampers utilize PZT materials (most
commonly ceramic or crystalline in structure) that react to the
application of electric current and generate a significant amount
of strain/stress, the level of which can be adjusted through the
level of current applied. These materials are utilized as stack
actuators (an actuator consisting of a stack of PZT material
that provides displacement when current is applied) or in
active struts (linear actuators with variable stiffness). Kamada
et al. [139] use PZT stack actuators to mitigate vibrations
through control of bending moments in columns for a scaled,
four-story, 3.7-m tall steel frame with a rectangular plan.
They tested two different placement schemes on a shaking
table subjected to sinusoidal loadings: one with eight actuators
placed vertically under the base of each column at ground
level and another with four actuators placed vertically at the
base of the column at ground level, and four between the
first and second floors. The authors found that both placement
schemes performed similarly using the H control algorithm.
Udwadia et al. [140] use semi-active members consisting
of PZT stack actuators to control simple MDOF systems. Xu
et al. [141] use PZT actuators and an LQR controller to reduce
large displacements of the top machinery room of a 30-m tall,
57.8 by 119.7 m in plain ship lift under seismic excitation. Chen
and Chen [142] present a power-saving control algorithm to
manage the response of a benchmark 20-story model, using
PZT actuators in cross-bracings subjected to 1995 Kobe, 1940
El Centro, 1994 Northridge, and 1965 Hachinohe earthquakes,
finding that adequate control can be achieved while only
requiring 2 kW of operating power.
Preumont et al. [143] discuss vibration control of a scaled
1.68-m tall space truss tower controlled by two PZT struts,
utilizing the integrated force feedback controller subjected to
the 1940 El Centro earthquake motion. They report that the
PZT actuators provide better control than resistive shunting
(which turns the PZT actuator into a passive vibration absorber).
Muanke et al. [144] discuss the use of a dry friction mechanism
consisting of two PZT stack actuators that apply varying normal
force to friction pads to generate damping force through
friction.
Xu and Ng [145] present the results of semi-active control
testing of a piezo-driven variable friction damper on a scaled
laboratory model of a rectangular, steel-frame, 2.4-m tall,
12-story building surrounded by a three-bay by one-bay,
0.6-m tall, three-story podium structure. The piezo-driven
variable friction damper works by utilizing a PZT actuator to
apply pressure to a sliding steel plate, thus generating a friction
force. The authors compared four cases using an LQG controller:
no connection between the two buildings, a rigid connection
at all three bottom floors, a passive damper connecting the
third floors, and a PZT variable friction damper connecting the
third floors. The authors subjected the model to the motions
of the 1940 El Centro, 1968 Hachinohe, 1995 Kobe, and the
1994 Northridge earthquakes, and found that the PZT variable
friction damper reduced the interstory drifts and accelerations
by 17% and 20%, respectively, compared with the case of passive
dampers.
3.5. Semi-active TMD
In this approach, a variable damping device, such as an MR
damper, is added to a TMD system to adjust its tuning capability
in real time. Lin et al. [146] investigate a TMD-MR system to
control a 2D, 12-story frame excited by the 1940 El Centro
and 1995 Kobe earthquakes. Using a clipped optimal control
strategy, the authors compare the performance of the system
with that of an ATMD system, and conclude the latter to be more
effective, but the former to be more economical due to its small
power requirement and ease of installation.
Setareh et al. [147] explore the use of a TMD-MR system
to mitigate floor vibrations. They performed experiments
comparing TMD-MR and passive TMD systems on a test floor,
consisting of a 30 8 foot metal deck with a five-inch
thick concrete slab on top and excited by an electromagnetic
shaker. The authors concluded that the TMD-MR system is
more effective than passive TMDs at mitigating vibrations due
to off-tuning caused by non-even floor mass distribution due
to equipment or other non-human loads. Conversely, they
found that TMDs perform better when off-tuning vibrations are
caused by humans.
3.6. Other methods
Patten et al. [148] tested an Intelligent Stiffener Bracing
system utilizing actuators on an actual 122-m long, two-lane,
four-span, steel girder bridge to reduce vibrations induced by
live traffic loads to prolong the life of the structure. They
installed the bracings and actuators on one of the middle spans
on three of the five girders (the middle and the two outside
girders) and powered the system using two 12-V automotive
batteries. The batteries have an operating life of two years and
 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
the system is controlled using a Lyapunov-based controller.
The authors conducted tests on the bridge with 32- and
54-metric ton trucks and found that the semi-active control
system reduced the peak measured bending stress in the girders
by approximately seven MPa.
Krstulovic-Opara et al. [149] propose using shape memory
alloys embedded in high-performance fiber reinforced concrete
as self-actuating fuses, to increase the capacity of areas with
high ductility demand in reinforced concrete frames. Shape
memory alloys can undergo large inelastic deformations (up to
8% strain), which are reversible with the application of a certain
level of stress or heat. The authors use a 2D, four-story, three-
meter tall, three-bay reinforced concrete frame with the self-
actuating fuse regions in the first floor columns and beams.
They subjected the shape memory alloy-strengthened frame
and an identical standard frame to the scaled motions of
the 1952 Taft earthquake, and found that the standard frame
sustained irreparable damage, while the frame with fuse region
reinforcement did not. Casciati et al. [150] also report the use of
shape memory alloy devices for vibration control of structures
under seismic loading.
Scruggs and Iwan [151] propose using a Brushless Direct
Current (BDC) motor to control the response of a structure.
The BDC provides damping by converting mechanical energy
to electrical energy and works much like an actuator, with
the motor powering an arm that controls movement. They
simulated the idea on a 2D, three-story frame with a BDC motor
located on the first floor using the clipped-optimal control
algorithm. Simulation results indicate the vibration control
provided by the BDC motor is comparable with that provided
by MR dampers.
Collins et al. [152] discuss the use of a Variable Stiffness
Tuned Mass Damper (VSTMD) which is a TMD with dampers
whose stiffness can be varied to match a desired frequency
for control of wind vibrations. They applied wind loads based
on the Davenport Spectrum on a single DOF structure, using
a bangbang control strategy and found that the semi-active
VSTMD system reduced vibrations of the structure consider-
ably. The bangbang controller rapidly switches between two
extreme states (i.e. on or off) and does not operate between the
two bounds.
Zhou and Sun [153] suggest the use of a semi-active fluid
damper, utilizing porous micro-particles suspended in water-
based ferrofluids, excited using a magnetic field generated by
an 18-layer copper coil surrounding the cylinder containing the
fluids. The level of magnetization applied varies the damping
force in the cylindrical damper. Tests results showed that the
damping force in the cylinder could be varied 32% by adjusting
the magnetic field, and that the colloidal damper generated very
little heat (four percent of that generated by a conventional MR
damper).
4. Final comments
Recent research on active and semi-active control of
structures performed since 1997 was reviewed in this paper.
In recent years, research has moved mostly from active control
to semi-active and hybrid vibration control of structures. Semi-
active and hybrid control systems provide more practical
approaches for actual implementation of the smart structure
technology. But earlier, as well as current, research on active
vibration control provides a solid and necessary foundation to
move the frontiers of smart structure technology forward, and
make this technology a practical alternative. In the companion
paper, hybrid control systems, as well as control strategies, are
reviewed and a number of conclusions are summarized.
281
References
[1] Adeli, H. and Jiang, X., Intelligent InfrastructureNeural Networks,
Wavelets, and Chaos Theory for Intelligent Transportation Systems and
Smart Structures, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2009).
[2] Adeli, H. and Kim, H., Wavelet-Based Vibration Control of Smart Buildings
and Bridges, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida (2009).
[3] Shwe, T.T. and Adeli, H. AI and CAD for earthquake damage evaluation,
Engineering Structures, 15(5), pp. 315319 (1993).
[4] Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. Comparative
analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods for seismic structural
retrofitting, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(6),
pp. 432445 (2009).
[5] Lu, L.Y., Lin, G.L. and Lin, C.H. A unified analysis model for energy
dissipation devices used in seismic-resistant structures, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(1), pp. 4161 (2009).
[6] Fisco, N.R. and Adeli, H. Smart structures: part IIhybrid control systems
and control strategies, Scientia Iranica, Transaction A: Civil Engineering,
18(3), pp. 285295 (2011).
[7] Adeli, H. and Saleh, A., Control, Optimization, and Smart StructuresHigh-
Performance Bridges and Buildings of the Future, John Wiley and Sons, New
York (1999).
[8] Koprinkova-Hriatova, P. Backpropagation through time training of a
neuro-fuzzy controller, International Journal of Neural Systems, 20(5),
pp. 421428 (2010).
[9] Chen, J.P., Webster, R.S., Hathaway, M.D., Herrick, G.P. and Skoch, G.J.
High performance computing of compressor rotating stall and stall
control, Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, 16(2), pp. 7589 (2009).
[10] Theodoridis, D.C., Boutalis, Y.S. and Christodoulou, M.A. Indirect
adaptive control of unknown multi variable nonlinear systems with
parametric and dynamic uncertainties using a new neuro-fuzzy system
description, International Journal of Neural Systems, 20(2), pp. 129148
(2010).
[11] Housner, G.W., Bergman, L.A., Caughey, T.K., Chassiakos, A.G., Claus, R.O.,
Masri, S.F., Skelton, E., Soong, T.T., Spencer, B.F. and Yao, J.T.P. Structural
control: past, present and future, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
123(9), pp. 897974 (1997).
[12] Pakrashi, V., OConnor, A. and Basu, B. A study on the effects of damage
models and wavelet bases for damage identification and calibration
in beams, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 22(8),
pp. 555569 (2007).
[13] Park, H.S., Lee, H.M., Adeli, H. and Lee, I. A new approach for health
monitoring of structures: terrestrial laser scanning, Computer-Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, 22(1), pp. 1930 (2007).
[14] Su, H.Z., Wu, Z.R. and Wen, Z.P. Identification model for dam behavior
based on wavelet network, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 22(6), pp. 438448 (2007).
[15] Xu, B., Chen, G. and Wu, Z. Parametric identification for a truss structure
using axial strain, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
22(3), pp. 210222 (2007).
[16] Jiang, X. and Adeli, H. Dynamic wavelet neural network for nonlinear
identification of highrise buildings, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering, 20(5), pp. 316330 (2005).
[17] Carden, E.P. and Brownjohn, J.M.W. Fuzzy clustering of stability
diagrams for vibration-based structural health monitoring, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 23(5), pp. 360372 (2008).
[18] He, X., Moaveni, B., Conte, J.P. and Elgamal, A. Modal identification
study of Vincent Thomas bridge using simulated wind-induced ambient
vibration data, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
23(5), pp. 373388 (2008).
[19] Belli, K., Wadia-Fascetti, S. and Rappaport, C. Model based evaluation of
bridge decks using ground penetrating radar, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 23(1), pp. 316 (2008).
[20] Li, S. and Wu, Z. A non-baseline method for damage locating and
quantifying in beam-like structure based on dynamic distributed strain
measurements, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
23(5), pp. 404413 (2008).
[21] Ni, Y.Q., Zhou, H.F., Chan, K.C. and Ko, J.M. Modal flexibility analysis of
cable-stayed Ting Kau bridge for damage identification, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 23(3), pp. 223236 (2008).
[22] Sohn, H., Kim, S.D. and Harries, K. Reference-free damage classification
based on cluster analysis, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 23(5), pp. 324338 (2008).
[23] Psimoulis, P.A. and Stiros, S.C. Experimental assessment of the accuracy
of GPS and RTS for the determination of the parameters of oscillation
of major structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
23(5), pp. 389403 (2008).
[24] Moaveni, B., He, X. and Conte, J.P. Damage identification of a composite
beam based on changes of modal parameters, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 23(5), pp. 339359 (2008).
[25] Moaveni, B., Conte, J.P. and Hemez, F.M. Uncertainty and sensitivity
analysis of damage identification results obtained using finite element
model updating, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
24(5), pp. 320334 (2009).
282 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
[26] Soyoz, S. and Feng, M.Q. Long-term monitoring and identification of
bridge structural parameters, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 24(2), pp. 8292 (2009).
[27] Umesha, P.K., Ravichandran, R. and Sivasubramanian, K. Crack detection
and quantification in beams using wavelets, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 24(8), pp. 593607 (2009).
[28] Cruz, P.J.S. and Salgado, R. Performance of vibration-based damage
detection methods in bridges, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 24(1), pp. 6279 (2009).
[29] Chen, B. and Liu, W. Mobile agent computing paradigm for building a
flexible structural health monitoring sensor network, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 25(7), pp. 504516 (2010).
[30] Huang, C.S., Huang, S.L., Su, W.C. and Wu, C.L. Identification of time-
variant modal parameters using TVARX and low-order polynomial
function, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(7),
pp. 470491 (2009).
[31] Huang, R.Y., Mao, I.S. and Lee, H.K. Exploring the deterioration factors
of bridges: a rough set theory approach, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 25(7), pp. 517529 (2010).
[32] Lin, C.C., Chen, C.L. and Wang, J.F. Vibration control of structures
with initially accelerated passive tuned mass dampers under near-
fault earthquake excitation, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 25(1), pp. 6975 (2010).
[33] Wu, J.C. and Yang, J.N. Active control of transmission tower un-
der stochastic wind, Journal of Structural Engineering, 124(11),
pp. 13021312 (1998).
[34] Yan, N., Wang, C.M. and Balendra, T. Optimal damper characteristics of
ATMD for buildings under wind loads, Journal of Structural Engineering,
125(12), pp. 13761383 (1999).
[35] Yamamoto, M., Aizawa, S., Higashino, M. and Toyama, K. Practical
application of active mass dampers with hydraulic actuator, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30(11), pp. 16971717 (2001).
[36] Li, H.J., Hu, S.L.J. and Jakubiak, C. H2 active vibration control of offshore
platform subjected to wave loading, Journal of Sound and Vibration,
263(4), pp. 709724 (2003).
[37] Lee, C.L. and Wang, Y.P. Seismic structural control using an electric
servomotor active mass driver system, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 33(6), pp. 737754 (2004).
[38] Chung, L.L., Lin, C.C. and Chu, S.Y. Optimal direct output feed-
back of structural control, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 119(11),
pp. 21572173 (1993).
[39] Ikeda, Y., Sasaki, M., Sakamoto, M. and Kobori, T. Active mass driver
system as the first application of active structural control, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 30(11), pp. 15751595 (2001).
[40] Li, C., Liu, Y. and Wang, Z. Active multiple tuned mass dampers: a new
control strategy, Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(7), pp. 972977
(2003).
[41] Guclu, R. and Yazici, H. Vibration control of a structure with ATMD
against earthquake using fuzzy logic controllers, Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 313(12), pp. 3649 (2008).
[42] Sarma, K. and Adeli, H. Fuzzy genetic algorithm for optimization of steel
structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(5), pp. 596604 (2000).
[43] Sarma, K. and Adeli, H. Fuzzy discrete multicriteria cost optimiza-
tion of steel structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(11),
pp. 13391347 (2000).
[44] Adeli, H. and Karim, A. Fuzzy-wavelet RBFNN model for freeway incident
detection, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 126(6), pp. 464471
(2000).
[45] Karim, A. and Adeli, H. Comparison of the fuzzy-wavelet RBFNN freeway
incident detection model with the California algorithm, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 128(1), pp. 2130 (2002).
[46] Jiang, X. and Adeli, H. Fuzzy clustering approach for accurate embedding
dimension identification in chaotic time series, Integrated Computer-
Aided Engineering, 10(3), pp. 287302 (2003).
[47] Adeli, H. and Jiang, X. Neuro-fuzzy logic model for freeway work
zone capacity estimation, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 129(5),
pp. 484493 (2003).
[48] Adeli, H. and Jiang, X. Dynamic fuzzy wavelet neural network model for
structural system identification, Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(1),
pp. 102111 (2006).
[49] Jiang, X. and Adeli, H. Dynamic fuzzy wavelet neuroemulator for
nonlinear control of irregular highrise building structures, International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 74(7), pp. 10451066
(2008).
[50] Smith, J.F. and Nguyen, T.H. Autonomous and cooperative robotic
behavior based on fuzzy logic and genetic programming, Integrated
Computer-Aided Engineering, 14(2), pp. 141159 (2007).
[51] Sabourin, C., Madani, K. and Bruneau, O. Autonomous biped gait
pattern based on fuzzy-CMAC neural networks, Integrated Computer-
Aided Engineering, 14(2), pp. 173186 (2007).
[52] Jin, X.L. and Doloi, H. Modelling risk allocation decision-making in
PPP projects using fuzzy logic, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 24(7), pp. 509524 (2009).
[53] Villar, J.R., de la Cal, E. and Sedano, J. A fuzzy logic based efficient energy
saving approach for domestic heating systems, Integrated Computer-
Aided Engineering, 16(2), pp. 151163 (2009).
[54] Rokni, S. and Fayek, A.R. A multi-criteria optimization framework for
industrial shop scheduling using fuzzy set theory, Integrated Computer-
Aided Engineering, 17(3), pp. 175196 (2010).
[55] Kim, Y., Langari, R. and Hurlebus, S. Model-based multi-input, multi-
output supervisory semiactive nonlinear fuzzy controller, Computer-
Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 25(5), pp. 387393 (2010).
[56] Reuter, U. and Moeller, B. Artificial neural networks for forecasting of
fuzzy time series, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
25(5), pp. 363374 (2010).
[57] Sadeghi, N., Fayek, A.R. and Pedrycz, W. Fuzzy Monte Carlo simulation
and risk assessment in construction, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering, 25(4), pp. 238252 (2010).
[58] Li, X., Er, M.J., Lim, B.S., Zhou, J.H., Gan, O.P. and Rutkowski, L. Fuzzy
regression modelling for tool performance prediction and degradation
detection, International Journal of Neural Systems, 20(5), pp. 405419
(2010).
[59] Yu, W. and Li, X. Automated nonlinear system modeling with multiple
fuzzy neural networks and kernel smoothing, International Journal of
Neural Systems, 20(5), pp. 429435 (2010).
[60] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Microtasking, macrotasking and autotasking for
structural optimization, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(2),
pp. 156174 (1994).
[61] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Parallel algorithms for integrated structural
and control optimization, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(3),
pp. 297314 (1994).
[62] Adeli, H. and Saleh, A. Integrated structural/control optimization of large
adaptive/smart structures, International Journal of Solids and Structures,
35(2829), pp. 38153830 (1998).
[63] Hsu, H.L. and Adeli, H. A microtasking algorithm for optimization
of structures, International Journal of Supercomputer Applications, 5(2),
pp. 8190 (1991).
[64] Adeli, H. and Kamal, O. Concurrent analysis of large structures I
algorithms, Computers and Structures, 42(3), pp. 413424 (1992).
[65] Adeli, H. and Kamal, O. Concurrent analysis of large structures II
applications, Computers and Structures, 42(3), pp. 425432 (1992).
[66] Adeli, H. and Hung, S.L. A concurrent adaptive conjugate gradient
learning algorithm on MIMD machines, Journal of Supercomputer
Applications, MIT Press, 7(2), pp. 155166 (1993).
[67] Hung, S.L. and Adeli, H. Parallel backpropagation learning algorithms
on cray Y-MP8/864 supercomputer, Neurocomputing, 5(6), pp. 287302
(1993).
[68] Adeli, H. and Hsu, H.-L. Optimization of space trusses on a vector
multiprocessor, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(1), pp. 120126
(1994).
[69] Soegiarso, R. and Adeli, H. Impact of vectorization on large-scale
structural optimization, Structural Optimization, 7(1), pp. 117125
(1994).
[70] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Microtasking, macrotasking, and autotasking for
optimization of structures, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(2),
pp. 156174 (1994).
[71] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.-T. Concurrent genetic algorithms for optimiza-
tion of large structures, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(3),
pp. 276296 (1994).
[72] Hung, S.L. and Adeli, H. A parallel genetic/neural network learning
algorithm for MIMD shared memory machines, IEEE Transactions on
Neural Networks, 5(60), pp. 900909 (1994).
[73] Adeli, H. and Kumar, S. Distributed genetic algorithms for structural
optimization, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 8(3), pp. 156163 (1995).
[74] Adeli, H. and Kumar, S. Distributed finite element analysis on a network
of workstationsalgorithms, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
121(10), pp. 14481455 (1995).
[75] Kumar, S. and Adeli, H. Distributed finite element analysis on a network
of workstationsimplementation and applications, Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 121(10), pp. 14561462 (1995).
[76] Adeli, H. and Kumar, S. Concurrent structural optimization on a
massively parallel supercomputer, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 121(11), pp. 15881597 (1995).
[77] Park, H.S. and Adeli, H. Distributed neural dynamics algorithms for
optimization of large steel structures, Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 123(7), pp. 880888 (1997).
[78] Adeli, H. High-performance computing for large-scale analysis, opti-
mization and control, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 13(1),
pp. 110 (2000).
[79] Sarma, K.C. and Adeli, H. Bi-level parallel genetic algorithms for opti-
mization of large steel structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastruc-
ture Engineering, 16(5), pp. 295304 (2001).
[80] Adeli, H. and Kamal, O., Parallel Processing in Structural Engineering,
Elsevier Applied Science, London (1993).
[81] Adeli, H. and Soegiarso, R., High-Performance Computing in Structural
Engineering, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida (1999).
 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
[82] Soegiarso, R. and Adeli, H. Parallel-vector algorithms for analysis of large
structures, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 8(1), pp. 5467 (1995).
[83] Begg, D.W. and Lui, X. Algorithms for optimal design of smart structural
systems, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 13(6),
pp. 415423 (1998).
[84] Adeli, H. and Saleh, A. Optimal control of adaptive/smart bridge
structures, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 123(2), pp. 218226
(1997).
[85] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Parallel eigenvalue algorithms for large-scale
control-optimization problems, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE,
9(3), pp. 7079 (1996).
[86] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Robust parallel algorithms for solution of
the Riccati equation, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 10(3),
pp. 126133 (1997).
[87] Hanagan, L.M. and Murray, T.M. Active control approach for re-
ducing floor vibrations, Journal of Structural Engineering, 123(11),
pp. 14971505 (1997).
[88] Hanagan, L.M., Kulasekere, E.C., Walgama, K.S. and Premaratne, K.
Optimal placement of actuators and sensors for floor vibration control,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 126(12), pp. 13801387 (2000).
[89] Agrawal, A.K., Yang, J.N., Schmitendorf, W.E. and Jabbari, F. Stability
of actively controlled structures with actuator saturation, Journal of
Structural Engineering, 123(11), pp. 14971505 (1997).
[90] Djouadi, S., Motro, R., Pons, J.C. and Crosnier, B. Active control of
tensegrity systems, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 11(2), pp. 3744
(1998).
[91] Asano, K. and Nakagawa, H. Active saturation control of hysteresis
structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 13(6),
pp. 425432 (1998).
[92] Chase, J.G., Breneman, S.E. and Smith, H.A. Robust H static output
feedback control with actuator saturation, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 125(2), pp. 225233 (1999).
[93] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Optimal control of adaptive/smart building
structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 13(6),
pp. 389403 (1998).
[94] Saleh, A. and Adeli, H. Optimal control of adaptive building structures
under blast loading, Mechatronics, 8(8), pp. 821844 (1998).
[95] Bossens, F. and Preumont, A. Active tendon control of cable-stayed
bridges: a large-scale demonstration, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 30(7), pp. 961979 (2001).
[96] Less, T. and Adeli, H. Computational earthquake engineering of bridges,
Scientia Iranica, Transaction A: Civil Engineering, 17(5), pp. 325338
(2010).
[97] Rodellar, J., Maosa, V. and Monroy, C. An active tendon control
scheme for cable-stayed bridges with model uncertainties and seismic
excitation, Structural Control and Health Monitoring, 9(1), pp. 7594
(2002).
[98] Christenson, R.E., Spencer Jr., B.F., Hori, N. and Seto, K. Coupled
building control using acceleration feedback, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 18(1), pp. 418 (2003).
[99] Ying, Z.G., Ni, Y.Q. and Ko, J.M. Stochastic optimal coupling-control
of adjacent building structures, Computers & Structures, 81(3031),
pp. 27752787 (2003).
[100] Song, G., Lin, J., Williams, F.W. and Wu, Z. Precise integration strategy for
a seismic LQG control of structures, International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 68(12), pp. 12811300 (2006).
[101] Cundumi, O. and Surez, L. Numerical investigation of a variable
damping semi-active device for the mitigation of the seismic response of
adjacent structures, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
23(4), pp. 291308 (2008).
[102] Zhang, C. and Ou, J. Controlstructure interaction of electromagnetic
mass damper system for structural vibration control, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 134(5), pp. 428437 (2008).
[103] Jung, H., Spencer Jr., B.F. and Lee, I. Control of seismically excited cable-
stayed bridge employing magnetorheological fluid dampers, Journal of
Structural Engineering, 129(7), pp. 873883 (2003).
[104] Dyke, S.J., Caicedo, J.M., Turan, G., Bergman, L.A. and Hague, S. Phase
I benchmark control problem for seismic response of cable-stayed
bridges, Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(7), pp. 857872 (2003).
[105] Moon, S.J., Bergman, L.A. and Voulgaris, P.G. Model predictive control
of wind-excited building: benchmark study, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 129(1), pp. 7178 (2003).
[106] Hiemenz, G.J., Choi, Y.T. and Wereley, N.M. Seismic control of civil
structures utilizing semi-active MR braces, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 18(1), pp. 3144 (2003).
[107] Sodeyama, H., Sunakoda, K., Fujitani, H., Soda, S., Iwata, N. and Hata, K.
Dynamic tests and simulations of magneto-rheological dampers,
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 18(1), pp. 4557
(2003).
[108] Liu, Y., Gordaninejad, F., Evrensel, C., Wang, X. and Hitchcock, G.
Comparative study on vibration control of a scaled bridge using fail-safe
magneto-rheological fluid dampers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
137(5), pp. 743751 (2005).
283
[109] Renzi, E. and Serino, G. Testing and modeling a semi-actively controlled
steel frame structure equipped with MR dampers, Structural Control and
Health Monitoring, 11(3), pp. 189221 (2004).
[110] Xu, Y.L., Chen, J., Ng, C.L. and Qu, W.L. Semi-active seismic response
control of buildings with podium structure, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 131(6), pp. 890899 (2005).
[111] Yoshida, O. and Dyke, S.J. Response control of full-scale irregular
buildings using magnetorheological dampers, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 131(5), pp. 734742 (2005).
[112] Narasimhan, S., Nagarajaiah, S., Gavin, H. and Johnson, E.A. Benchmark
problem for control of base isolated buildings, In Proc., 15th Engineering
Mechanics Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA (2002).
[113] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.T. Augmented Lagrangian genetic algorithm for
structural optimization, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(1),
pp. 104118 (1994).
[114] Adeli, H. and Cheng, N.T. Concurrent genetic algorithms for optimization
of large structures, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, 7(3),
pp. 276296 (1994).
[115] Kang, M.W., Schonfeld, P. and Yang, N. Prescreening and repairing in a
genetic algorithm for highway alignment optimization, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24(2), pp. 109119 (2009).
[116] Al-Bazi, A. and Dawood, N. Developing crew allocation system for
precast industry using genetic algorithms, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 25(8), pp. 581595 (2010).
[117] Lee, Y. and Wei, C.H. A computerized feature selection using genetic
algorithms to forecast freeway accident duration times, Computer-Aided
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 25(2), pp. 132148 (2010).
[118] Cheng, T.M. and Yan, R.Z. Integrating messy genetic algorithms and
simulation to optimize resource utilization, Computer-Aided Civil and
Infrastructure Engineering, 24(6), pp. 401415 (2009).
[119] Kim, H. and Adeli, H. Discrete cost optimization of composite floors
using a floating point genetic algorithm, Engineering Optimization, 33(4),
pp. 485501 (2001).
[120] Jiang, X. and Adeli, H. Neuro-genetic algorithm for nonlinear active
control of highrise buildings, International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Engineering, 75(8), pp. 770786 (2008).
[121] Loh, C.H., Lynch, J.P., Lu, K.C., Wang, Y., Chang, C.M., Lin, P.Y. and Yeh, T.H.
Experimental verification of a wireless sensing and control system
for structural control using MR dampers, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 36(10), pp. 13031328 (2007).
[122] Loh, C.H. and Chang, C.M. Application of centralized and decentralized
control to building structure: analytical study, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 134(11), pp. 970982 (2008).
[123] Christenson, R., Lin, Y.Z., Emmons, A. and Bass, B. Large-scale experimen-
tal verification of semi-active control through real-time hybrid simula-
tion, Journal of Structural Engineering, 134(4), pp. 522534 (2008).
[124] Patten, W.N., Mo, C., Kuehn, J. and Lee, J. A primer on design of semiactive
vibration absorbers (SAVA), Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 124(1),
pp. 6168 (1998).
[125] Jabbari, F. and Bobrow, J.E. Vibration suppression with resettable
device, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 128(9), pp. 916924 (2002).
[126] Agrawal, A.K., Yang, J.N. and He, W.L. Applications of some semi-active
control systems to benchmark cable-stayed bridge, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(7), pp. 884894 (2003).
[127] Kurino, H., Tagami, J., Shimzu, K. and Kobori, T. Switching oil damper
with built-in controller for structural control, Journal of Structural
Engineering, 129(7), pp. 895904 (2003).
[128] Nishitani, A., Nitta, Y. and Ikeda, Y. Semi-active structural-control based
on variable slip-force level dampers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
129(7), pp. 933940 (2003).
[129] Fukukita, A., Saito, T. and Shiba, K. Control effect for 20-story benchmark
building using passive semiactive device, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 130(4), pp. 430436 (2004).
[130] Bhardwaj, M.K. and Datta, T.K. Semi-active fuzzy control of seismic
response of building frame, Journal of Structural Engineering, 132(5),
pp. 791799 (2006).
[131] Kurata, N., Kobori, T., Takahashi, M., Niwa, N. and Midorikawa, H. Actual
seismic response controlled building with semi-active damper system,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28(11), pp. 14271447
(1999).
[132] Yang, J.N., Bobrow, J., Jabbari, F., Leavitt, J., Cheng, C.P. and Lin, Y.P. Full-
scale experimentation verification of resettable semi-active stiffness
dampers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 36(9),
pp. 12551273 (2007).
[133] Sakai, F., Takaeda, S. and Tamaki, T. Tuned liquid column damper
new type device for suppression of building vibrations, Proceed-
ings of International Conference on Highrise Buildings, Nanjing, China,
pp. 926931 (1989).
[134] Sakai, F., Takaeda, S. and Tamaki, T. Tuned liquid damper (TLCD) for
cable-stayed bridges, Proceedings of Specialty Conf. Invitation in Cable-
Stayed Bridges, Fukuoka, Japan, pp. 197205 (1991).
[135] Yalla, S.K., Kareem, A. and Kantor, J.C. Semi-active tuned liquid column
dampers for vibration control of structures, Engineering Structures,
23(11), pp. 14691479 (2001).
284 N.R. Fisco, H. Adeli / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 18 (2011) 275284
[136] Kim, H. and Adeli, H. Hybrid control of smart structures using a
novel wavelet-based algorithm, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 20(1), pp. 722 (2005).
[137] Yalla, S.K. and Kareem, A. Semi-active tuned liquid column dampers: ex-
perimental study, Journal of Structural Engineering, 129(7), pp. 960971
(2003).
[138] Chen, Y.H. and Ko, C.H. Active tuned liquid column damper with
propellers, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 32,
pp. 16271638 (2003).
[139] Kamada, T., Fujita, T., Hatayama, T., Arikabe, T., Murai, N., Aizama, S. and
Tohyama, K. Active vibration control of frame structures with smart
structures using piezoelectric actuators (vibration control by control
of bending moment of columns), Smart Materials and Structures, 6(4),
pp. 448456 (1997).
[140] Udwadia, F.E., Hosseini, M. and Wada, B. Distributed control of
large-scale structural systems, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, 13(6), pp. 377387 (1998).
[141] Xu, Y.L., Qu, W.L. and Chen, B. Active/robust moment controllers for
seismic response control of a large span building on top of ship lift
towers, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 261(2), pp. 277296 (2003).
[142] Chen, G. and Chen, C. Semiactive control of the 20-story benchmark
building with piezoelectric friction dampers, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics, 130(4), pp. 393400 (2004).
[143] Preumont, A., de Marneffe, B., Deraemaeker, A. and Bossen, F. The
damping of a truss structure with a piezoelectric transducer, Computers
and Structures, 86(35), pp. 227239 (2008).
[144] Muanke, P.B., Masson, P. and Micheau, P. Determination of normal force
for optimal energy dissipation of harmonic disturbance in a semi-active
device, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 311(35), pp. 633651 (2008).
[145] Xu, Y.L. and Ng, C.L. Seismic protection of a building complex
using variable friction damper: experimental investigation, Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 134(8), pp. 637649 (2008).
[146] Lin, P.Y., Chung, L.L. and Loh, C.H. Semiactive control of building
structures with semiactive tuned mass damper, Computer-Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, 20(1), pp. 3551 (2005).
[147] Setareh, M., Ritchey, J.K., Murray, T.M., Koo, J.H. and Ahmadian, M.
Semi-active tuned mass damper for floor vibration control, Journal of
Structural Engineering, 133(2), pp. 242250 (2007).
[148] Patten, W.N., Sun, J., Guangjun, L., Kuehn, C. and Song, G. Field test
on an intelligent stiffener for bridges at the i-35 Walnut Creek bridge,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28(2), pp. 109126
(1999).
[149] Krstulovic-Opara, N., Nau, J., Wriggers, P. and Krstulovic, L. Self-
actuating SMA-HPFRCC fuses for auto-adaptive composite structures,
Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 18(1), pp. 7894
(2003).
[150] Casciati, F., Faravelli, L. and Petrini, L. Energy dissipation in shape mem-
ory alloy devices, Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
13(6), pp. 433442 (1998).
[151] Scruggs, J.T. and Iwan, W.D. Control of a civil structure using an electric
machine with semi-active capability, Journal of Structural Engineering,
129(7), pp. 951959 (2003).
[152] Collins, R., Basu, B. and Broderick, B.M. Bangbang and semi-active
control with variable stiffness TMDs, Journal of Structural Engineering,
134(2), pp. 310317 (2008).
[153] Zhou, G.Y. and Sun, L.Z. Smart colloidal dampers with on-demand
controllable damping capability, Smart Materials and Structures, 129(7),
pp. 905913 (2008).
Nicholas R. Fisco received his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from
The Ohio State University. He is currently an Engineer with TranSystems
Corporation in Cleveland, Ohio.
Hojjat Adeli is Abba G. Lichtenstein Professor of Civil Engineering at The
Ohio State University. A contributor to 80 different research journals, he has
authored/co-authored over 450 papers in various fields of computer science,
engineering, mathematics and medicine since 1976 when he received his
Ph.D. from Stanford University at the age of 26. He has authored/co-authored
fourteen books and edited fourteen books. In 1995, he wrote Machine Learning
Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithms and Fuzzy Sets (published by John Wiley
and Sons), the first authored book that covers and integrates the three main
areas of soft computing. His recent books include Intelligent Infrastructure
Neural Networks, Wavelets and Chaos Theory for Intelligent Transportation Systems
and Smart Structures (CRC Press, 2009) and Automated EEG-based Diagnosis of
Neurological Disorders Inventing the Future of Neurology (CRC Press, 2010).
He also holds a United States patent. He is quadruple winner of The Ohio
State University, Lumley Outstanding Research Award. In 1998 he received The
Ohio State Universitys highest research honor, the Distinguished Scholar Award,
in recognition of extraordinary accomplishments in research and scholarship. In
2005, he was elected Honorary/Distinguished Member, American Society of
Civil Engineers: for wide-ranging, exceptional, and pioneering contributions to
computing in many civil engineering disciplines and extraordinary leadership in
advancing the use of computing and information technologies in civil engineering
throughout the world In 2007, he received The Ohio State University College of
Engineering, Peter L. and Clara M. Scott Award, for Excellence in Engineering
Education, as well as the Charles E. MacQuigg, Outstanding Teaching Award. In
2008, he was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) for distinguished contributions to computational infrastructure
engineering and for worldwide leadership in computational science and engineering
as a prolific author, keynote speaker and editor-in-chief of journals. He received
the Outstanding Civil Engineer award from the American Society of Civil
Engineers, Central Ohio Section in 2009. He is Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the
international journals of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering and
Integrated Computer-Aided Engineering, and Editor-in-Chief of the International
Journal of Neural Systems.